Reflections on the Curious Case(s) of Benjamin Button

***Warning: Potential spoiler for both the film and short story***

First, I want to go over what I did like from the film, then the differences and similarities between the short story and cinematic versions of Ben Button, and then critique the relationship between Daisy and Benjamin.

If the film was called anything but the Curious Case..., it would be a rather fine Hollywood film. (I would call it Titanic meets Forrest Gump, except much better written than both.) It was consistent and beautiful. It tried to tell a complex story that spanned through what might be the United State's lifespan as the source of influence, innovation, and ideals that make us all, to some extent, patriotic. Beginning on November 11, 1919, the final day of WWI, and ending just as Hurricane Katrina hits NOLA, it evoked thoughts of innocence and reflection that made the United States such a strong country. Coming into its own after WWI and clearly having lost it's way in the wake of Katrina, Ben's life (and the backwards clock, a great image) could simply be a statement that the United States became and remained great for its wisdom of an elder nation, yet maintaining the innovative spirit of youth. This is reinforced by the final image of the backwards-moving clock being submerged in flood water.

The film also made strides to involve many different perspectives in their characters, probably also something that speaks to the potential for mulitcultural experiences in the United States and abroad. Ben is raised by an African American and the couple who made the backwards clock in the first scene is biracial. Ben meets Irish, English, Russian, and African personalities who all have influences on his life. He spends time in Russia (presumably during the Soviet reign). Daisy also has interesting experiences, dancing in Russia and being a part of a fast-moving and apparently bisexual and promiscuous dancing company (this is pretty light, but nice for a Hollywood film to at least recognize). It does a relatively good job at bringing in new concepts and ideas without flouting them. I doubt many mainstream films have succeeded as much as Ben Button in this.

From a cinematic standpoint, the film had great cinematography and color. It was also cleverly written, with deep as well as humorous parts, making the three hours seems more like two. For a film that tried to say a lot, this is a compliment. The acting was solid, although I think that it could have been much stronger had the early Benjamin been played by a child rather than Brad Pitt. That way, his youth amidst his looks would be better conveyed.

But, these positives are severely negated by 1) it's lack of depth in analyzing Ben's trials, glazing over what complexities in life would come with aging backwards, and 2) not truly being an adaptation of Fitzgerald's short but enlightening character study.

The differences between the short story and film are staggering, both in context and in purpose. As someone who has read the short story numerous times (and, admittedly, a part of the minority of the audience for which this film is intended), I am shocked that they decided to maintain the short story's title. First, the timeframe for the short story is between 1860 and 1930; the film takes place between WWI and Katrina, almost an 80 year difference. This will of course change many of the era-defined circumstances that take place, such as the Ben's great military experience being the Spanish-American War rather than WWII. Second, in the short story, Benjamin is the heir to a Baltimore Hardware fortune and attends Harvard; in the film he is orphaned in NOLA by a button producer and does not have any formal schooling. These differences are admittedly superficial at first glance, but many of these changes can affect how characters are perceived as well as their life experiences that define who they are.

In its' defense, many great adaptations have been superficially modified/modernized, so this mere fact is not dispositive of a credible adaptation. But usually in modernized / contextually modified adaptations (such as Requiem for a Dream, Titus, Paltrow/Hawke's Great Expectations) maintain the basic ideas the drive the original works. The idea in the original short story, though, has more to do with a man who begins life with age - taking both the bad and the good - and then must face the opposite perspective in the end, while still not being taken seriously for the same reason. In early life, Yale rejects Ben for being too old, only to suffer in the future when Ben, now late in life, destroys Yale at football; he becomes a military hero in early life only too see his preeminence falter because he looks like a child late in life; looking like a wealthy distinguished man, Ben wins the hand of the teenage Hildegarde (Daisy, in the film. sort of), only to detest her as he becomes a youth. ("And here we come to an unpleasant subject which it will be well to pass over as quickly as possible. There was only one thing that worried Benjamin Button; his wife had ceased to attract him.") Unlike in the film, where Ben seems to use (and Daisy seems to accept) his excuse of traumatizing their child for leaving the family high and dry, in the short story Ben openly leaves the aging family for more excitement, opting to indulge in his youthful ambitions rather than grow old and settle down. The short story leaves Ben a tragic, if not discontent, hero, rather the dull one-dimensional hero that the film instead chooses.

Father-son relationships also play a much stronger role in the short story. The crux of the beginning is spent on the father reconciling his son's ailment. In the film, the father is another superfluous character. In the short story, Ben must also face his child's conflict with Ben's aging, which parallels the shame that his father originally felt. In the film, Ben meets his daughter once, with the daughter not even knowing that Ben is her father. For me, this is the strongest subplot in the short story; I don't really know why this would be taken out of the adaptation, if not to make Ben less complicated of a character, with less baggage and less conflict at the beginning and end of his life.

The similarities between the two versions of the Curious Case of Benjamin Button are equally tenuous. The only direct parallel is that Benjamin ages backwards. Really, it's only the basic premise of the short story that is at all similar to Fitzgerald's original. And even this similarity seems somewhat gimmicky, as little in the film truly hinges on Benjamin's affliction. I guess that some of the older people in the rest home would have treated him different, but everything could have happened had he been a personable child, except maybe the drinking and sex with the hooker, which seemed to have no bearing on the greater plot.

Besides his interactions with Daisy, nothing Ben did before he began working on the tugboat (something that he could have easily done as a young teenager as well) really dictates the plot or develops his character. During his middle age, he still could have fallen in love and had the affair in Russia, although, granted, he would probably be more prone to going out on the town had he been young. Later in his middle years, Benjamin and Daisy seemed to act as any couple would, living together and trying to begin a family, so there is really nothing special about his age at that time, either. When he decides to leave Daisy and his daughter to go out on his own, the same thing could have occurred with a man who was afraid to commit to his family (which he essentially was).

His desertion at the end of the film is also problematic for me, at least in the sense that the film makes no recognition of the double standard between Benjamin and Daisy. Apparently, in their youth, Benjamin and Daisy got along well; Daisy was able to accept and look past Ben's physical age. When it came time for Daisy to be the elder, Ben could not accept her in that same way. There is no reproach for his lack of faith that the family would work out and Daisy seems to roll with the punches rather well, considering that Ben basically allowed her to fall for him, impregnated her without being dedicated to her, and required her to find another husband to grow old with and to love, even though Ben and Daisy were clearly lifelong lovers. The way in which these two characters are treated is borderline sexist, honestly, and shows more about Daisy's strength than Ben's interesting perspective on life.

In the end, Fitzgerald's original, while short and not as epic as the film, acts more as a character study of how such a person would progress through a life lived backwards. Fitzgerald does not shy away from making Benjamin fallible and honest, taking a cold hard look at beginning life choosing structure and ending with the restlessness of youth. Conversely, the film wants to tell a story, requiring that the characters do not veer too far from a formula that keeps them apart, yet tethered by an undying love. The film wanted to end sentimentally, meaning that Ben needed excuses for his youthful selfishness. The film somewhat succeeds at making Ben sympathetic until the end, but it does so at the expense of the honest assessment of the human condition that made it's original author one of the greatest American writers.

Hopefully up next: something more fun and a Top Films of the Year list...